Comments by "Nicholas Conder" (@nicholasconder4703) on "The Damage Report"
channel.
-
Are we going to adding Truth Social to the substantial number of Trumps failures and bankruptcies? These include: Trump University, Trump Steaks, Trump Airlines, Trump Taj Mahal, Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino, Plaza Hotel, Trump Castle Hotel and Casino, Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts, and Trump Entertainment Resorts. That's 9, count them 9, failed enterprises. Truth Social will make it at least 10.
And this is a successful entrepreneur? Sounds like more of a con man to me.
11
-
9
-
6
-
4
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@aircraftcarrierwo-class Not quite. It will depend on whether the GOP leadership decides to clean house after this debacle or not. I don't have a problem with conservatism per se, but radical right-wing politics is all about domination, not preserving morals and ethics. They still have a chance to step back from the brink, but to do so they will have to get rid of Hawley, Cruz, Nunes, Boettler, the other three idiot Representatives who spoke at the Trump rally (I'm not American, so I can't remember their names off-hand), and a couple more. They must also formally acknowledge the election results and apologize formally to the American people for lying and standing aside while Trump and his minions acted. Only then is there any possibility to prevent their downward slide towards dictatorship. I would almost say McConnel should resign as well, but since many Republicans obviously follow his lead, he would have to stay until this mess gets cleaned up.
1
-
1
-
Privatization does work sometimes, other times it does not. Some highways in Canada are privatized, and work quite well. The Hoover Dam is a private enterprise. But, the entire US highway system was a national, Federal project (not privatized), and that worked well.
However, nationalizing things doesn't always work, either. Nationalizing the British Rail System and coal mines caused the British economy to tank in the 1950s to 1980s.
The main thing is HOW it is done, and WHO you put in charge, and the DEGREE to which the privatization or nationalization is done. Going fully one way or the other is not the best idea. One needs to have a mixed system, which is constantly reviewed to determine which method of managing a particular asset is the best way to go.
I also think this issue in the infrastructure bill is being blown WAY out of proportion.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Shaun Folk Some corrections. First, the slavery mentioned in the old testament was more a form of indentured servitude - you had a debt you could not pay off, so you worked for the person to whom you owed money. And for no more than seven years. And you were not to mistreat the person in any way. Second, there were also many times when non-believers were given preferential treatment over believers by God. Third, I hate to break it to you, but at times science works just as much on belief as religion does. I know this first-hand because I work in research. Fourth, one has to remember that for a lot of its history, the bible was handed down orally by people who were at times slightly more advanced than the Kalahari Bushmen. So there have been lots of opportunities for errors to creep into the narrative. Doesn't make the main points wrong. You might as well say that Eratosthenes was wrong believing the world was a sphere because he miscalculated the circumference of the Earth. Or Democritus was wrong because he didn't know an atom is composed of particles, which in turn are composed of subatomic particles.
As for the other things you mention in the first paragraph, I would mention that we have charitable organizations like OXFAM, Doctors without Borders, the Red Cross, etc., all because of Christianity. It was the church that kept most of the ancient learning from the Greeks and Romans from being lost. Like most things, you cannot make blanket statements and blame the whole on the actions of a few. That in itself is a form of bigotry. You have to look at things on a case-by-case basis, and judge not on the actions of individuals, but on the overall performance of the organization over time.
1
-
1
-
Shaun, have been trying to get hold of you for a bit. I had a response ready for you, then the thread ended up going off the end of the page or something. Anyway, I thought I should send this to you. While researching a response to you, I discovered a bunch of really interesting stuff about Bronze Age economics, biblical timelines, when the bible was likely written, etc. Certainly put a whole new spin on things. I'll need to send this in a few packets, but here goes ...
I guess I should first state my position on this. I am a Roman Catholic and I have read the bible in its entirety multiple times, but not to the extent of being able to quote chapter and verse (which for reasons I state below I think is a waste of time).
First, my stance on the bible is more or less what my father’s was. He was an atheist who converted to Catholicism after studying what the religion taught. He did not judge the faith based on what some people professing to be Catholic did in the past, or present. Rather, he accepted the faith because of what it taught and the values that Christ extolled. He also looked at what the Apostles wrote in their letters in the context of the age they lived in, and did not make the mistake of basing his views on how people think nowadays. Having said this, it is important to remember that the reason we have our modern value system is because of 2,000 years of Christian teaching. You only need look at how other cultures have acted even in recent memory to see this. It is Christianity that has led us to a world where we view slavery with repugnance, and try to have high moral and ethical standards. One video that talks about some of the positive aspects of Christianity is “Another 11 Historic Misconceptions (last segment, starting at 20:13) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mrd796w6FEs .
My father’s stance (and mine) on the Bible is that the Old Testament is a history of the Jewish peoples’ relationship with God. I have since slightly altered this view to seeing the Old Testament as history presented in the heroic mold, much like the histories we have of the Vikings in the Norse Sagas, the ancient Greeks in the Illiad, and early England in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles. Real events are being recounted, but the chronology can be off, names might be altered and events “spruced up” to satisfy the audience of the day. In the case of the Old Testament this was probably the later Davidic Kings. So there is a lot of hyperbole that unfortunately colours the events. There are a three rather good comprehensive videos on “Who Wrote the Bible?” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY-l0X7yGY0 ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAIiLSMOg3Q and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oto0UvG6aVs ; and “Biblical Chronology” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erdhEOOo5Ak .However, one needs to keep in mind when watching these videos (and which is stated several times during them), this is what scholars THINK happened, and reality may have been quite different. Lacking time machines there is no way to be absolutely sure.
Second, it is always important to remember that the people involved in the Old Testament mostly lived when the people of the Middle East transitioned from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age. Culture, morals and ethics were different. Peoples tended to be more brutal towards others, especially if they were of different ethnic origins. It was a time of turmoil, as entire empires (Hittite, Babylonian, Ugarit, etc.) crumbled and new ethnic groups appeared. One need only read about the huge number of cities throughout the eastern Mediterranean that were sacked and destroyed at this time to see this. Only Assyria and Egypt more or less survived. I suspect the reason why the Israelites were able to create their own state is because they migrated into the region as a coherent group while this power vacuum existed. One cannot judge them by our modern standards (a mistake Hollywood, many fantasy novelists and some historians make). They were a people of their age.
Third, and perhaps most importantly when reading about “slavery” in the Old Testament, one must remember that Bronze Age economics were nothing like modern economics. COINAGE DID NOT EXIST. Indeed, coinage only appeared in the Middle East around 600 BC in Lydia (modern day Turkey), well after the Old Testament was written. The economy was based on barter of goods and services, and payment using produce, manufactured products and labor, while collection of taxes consisted of taking a portion of the trade goods or time as labor. A good video covering this is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5p6EL-a0v60 . Please remember when watching this that talent and minas relate to the weights of the goods, not monetary value https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talent_(measurement) . Interestingly enough, this form of payment and tax collection reappeared in many parts of Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire. Early Anglo-Saxon economics also worked this way (farmers paying their overlords “food render”, aka food rent), something I found out from listening to the History of Britain podcast (Wikipedia entries on this are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_medieval_England and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_render#:~:text=Food%20render%20or%20food%20rent,at%20a%20territory's%20royal%20vill). So it is likely that some accounts of “slavery” in the Old Testament are dealing with this form of “labor as payment” system, and is actually a mistranslation of the Hebrew word for this practice. One source indicated the word used was more akin to “servant” than to “slave”. Thus, if you owed something, you could pay in goods or, if you had nothing else, your labor. In the Kings and Generals video, around timestamp 12:46, it covers the Anatolian version of the debt forgiveness discussed in the Bible (Jubilee Year).
Fourth, there is the issue that what was originally said has been distorted, either through miscommunication, mistranslation or deliberate rewriting by individuals to suit their own purposes. Many of the older sections of the Bible (Genesis in particular, but most likely anything up to around the time of King David) were passed down orally, and will be more prone these sources of error. This means that in many cases there is great difficulty distinguishing history from fable. That said, I still think that all the main stories in the Old Testament did occur, as people tend pass down very memorable events to later generations. Examples of this include the West Coast Aboriginal people’s stories of the Thunderbird and the Whale (the AD 1700 9.0 Richter Cascadia Earthquake), or the story of the titanic fight between Llao and Skell (the Mount Mazama eruption of 5700 BCE). Just because the history was told in a heroic style does not invalidate it. One need only look at the Iliad and subsequent discovery of Troy (and other Mycenaean cities) to see this. Also, with regards to mistranslation, from what I have read even modern translators of the Bible will use the terms “servant” and “slave” interchangeably, adding confusion to the issue. Unfortunately I don’t know ancient Hebrew, Latin or Greek, so can only rely on scholars in this matter.
Fifth, it can be very difficult sometimes to judge between what God tells the Israelites to do, what they have decided God wants them to do, and what they themselves do on their own accord. This takes careful reading and sometimes looking at different translations of the same text to parse. In this regard, it is possible that some of the laws you are quoting were adopted from the local inhabitants (the “eye for eye” quote sounds very Hammurabic). The question one should ask sometimes is whether or not God told them to do it, one of the heroes of the story, or one of the later scribes when they wrote the text.
I will continue and answer your specific questions in part 2.
1
-
4) There is no question that mistakes appear in the Bible. One memorable typo I read about this in Uncle John’s Bathroom Reader has one of the Ten Commandments written as, “Thou shalt commit adultery” (this version of the Bible is a collector’s item, by the way). The Douay’s Bible I have includes many footnotes, and openly states that several verses are “possible glosses”; glosses being interpretations or comments made by people in the margins. These glosses eventually ended up being included as scripture or text in later copies. I will also state that, even if the Bible is divinely inspired, people are fallible and sinful, meaning they will make honest mistakes or deliberate self-serving insertions. The longer verse or text is in a form where changes can be made without scrutiny, this will continue to happen. As long as anything is in human hands it is always prudent to remember that people make mistakes, and will either deliberately or inadvertently distort the history.
5) This theory is based off one person’s Ph.D. dissertation and later work. It is one person’s interpretation of history based on scant evidence. Reading a review of the book this appears in, I noticed the word “may” appear in a crucial section (“El MAY [emphasis added] have been the original deity worshipped by the Israelites”). In other words, it’s all guesswork. It will probably be dropped in the next 10-20 years when some other newer, fancier, shinier theory takes its place in the spotlight. The reason I don’t take this theory seriously is because I remember the widely accepted theory back in the 1960s and 1970s that the Mayans were peaceful agricultural philosopher astronomers. Boy did they get a shock when the Mayan script was finally translated (the Mayas turned out to be a bloodthirsty warrior society practicing human sacrifice). Or the archeological site I was shown in China where the guides said it showed a matriarchal society, based on one burial of a woman with seven men. That’s proof? This theory sounds to me more like a badly done connect-the-dots diagram, where the dots weren’t connected in the right order and others were added, making for a confused image. I would be more likely to believe that the Jews were renegades from Egypt who still worshipped the sun god Aten, and were persecuted by the followers of the Egyptian pantheon than this convoluted theory. This would also explain the Exodus, as well. This was a widely accepted concept, two or three theories ago, but most people nowadays debunk this idea.
6) Well, the issue of shellfish is easy to explain. You should check out the number of people who have died of either red tide or other forms of shellfish poisoning. Plus shellfish start to become inedible very quickly if not treated in some way. Same with pork and other animals mentioned in the Bible. Or would you like some yummy trichinosis? To be fair, not sure about the mixed fabrics. With regards to slavery, as mentioned above, they were to be treated fairly, and owners who beat slaves were to be punished. Slavery was a part of life back in those days. They were to be treated humanely and as part of the household, not like slaves at the time of Spartacus or pre-US Civil War. I don’t condone it, and find it unacceptable, but in the Early Iron Age everybody engaged in slavery of some form or other. This harkens back to a previous comment I made, that you cannot judge the people of the Early Iron Age by our modern standards, and it may not have been slavery as we understand it (as explained above).
7) And if you read further, you would see (as I stated above), the person would be punished for beating their slave. Unlike plantation owners before the Civil War, who could mistreat their slaves however they liked, it seems. What you said here speaks more to the evil that exists within individuals, rather than the religion. The religious laws are meant to address the issue, in part. Again, how much these were amended between them being formulated and finally being committed to paper/papyrus (which could have been 500+ years for all we know) is unknown.
8) With regards to the lengthier section:
a. This is taken out of context. Jesus is making an analogy here, using an example that the disciples would have been very familiar with (i.e., how many people treated disobedient servants). He is not condoning it. He isn’t telling them to go and do it themselves. The disciples asked for a parable, and He is giving them one.
b. This is a translational issue. In my Douay’s version, the verse reads “Servants, be subject to your masters in all fear [reverence], not only to the good and kindly, but also the perverse.” In other words, Peter is telling Christian adherents who may be slaves that the need to try to endure whatever comes their way. In no way is Peter condoning slavery, but rather is calling on followers to put God first and follow Christ’s example. After all, striking back only escalates the cycle of violence.
c. This point was refuted by comment d) below. Part of the reason for this ordinance is because the Jewish people were supposed to be the priesthood for humanity. They were supposed to set an example, which they messed up. This is one of the reasons why the Book of Jeremiah is rife with references to the abuse of slaves and slavery laws. Also, as stated above, non-Jewish slaves were to be treated as well as Jewish “slaves”, more or less as members of the household rather than as the Republican Romans at the time of Spartacus and Southerners in the US treated their slaves. Something else I would add, it is possible that some of these texts were “corrected” by later Jewish scholars after the return of the Israelites from the Babylonian captivity. If you read the books of Ezra and Nehemiah there are very definite racial bias and emphasis on racial and spiritual purity, far more so than found in any of the earlier works. This is probably because they had just returned to Israel after being in exile under a repressive regime for around 70 years.
d. As mentioned, this refutes your point c) to a large extent.
e. Sex slaves are nothing new. Not that I am condoning it, but you may want to remember the Japanese Army Comfort Girls, the SS bothels and Lebensborn during WW2. Sadly, this says more about the Israelites being people of their time. However, you should note that their treatment was supposed to be much better than other slave women of that era. Doesn’t make it right, though.
f. I believe I covered this in 6) and 7) above.
g. I have read this passage several times previously. This text is about spiritual purity, not racial purity. The issue is that many of the rites that these people would have partaken in were probably. Deuteronomy 20:18 covers why. “Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God.” These other things included human sacrifice, ritualized temple prostitution, and other acts that were (and in most cases still are) considered deplorable. It is also no better than how most other cultures of the time treated people, and still do. One need only look at the Chibok Schoolgirls kidnapping in 2014 to see this still happens https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chibok_schoolgirls_kidnapping . On that note, I’m rather surprised you didn’t bring up the issue with the “Tribe of Benjamin Needs Women” section of the Old Testament: https://www.enterthebible.org/Controls/feature/tool_etb_resource_display/resourcebox.aspx?selected_rid=662&original_id=27 .
h. If the people of a town surrendered to the Israelites they then became their responsibility. As I mentioned previously, because there was no currency, payments were always made in terms of labor, goods or produce. In other words, they were taxed and placed under the protection of the Israelites. An example of this is the Gibeonites (Book of Joshua) who were subjugated, but when later attacked by their neighbors, were protected by the Israelites. The treatment of towns that refused to surrender is no different to what the Mongols did on a much grander scale. The Romans did much the same thing, if you read history. Again, it speaks more to the culture of the age (or when the text was finally written down). Whether this was in the original scripture we will never know.
Discussion on whether Moses existed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptYz-Vu0dxY&t=1s
Discussion on whether Jesus existed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRfFLjWLybA
Roman perspective on Jesus and Christians: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A41Tm5FDKns
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1